Another log for the fire

[spike]

Iraq had WMDs.


He signed a surrender order which barred him from possessing them. I bet you're excited to see Iran & NK developing nukes.

Israel has WMDs for sure. None have been found in Iraq.

Israel is violating documents they have signed which bar them from doing certain things.

That should make it pretty clear that if action was justified in Iraq it's certainly justified for Israel. Time to cut off the funding and use it for the taxpayers.

Try to be objective.

 

[chcr]

Israel has WMDs for sure. None have been found in Iraq.

Israel is violating documents they have signed which bar them from doing certain things.

That should make it pretty clear that if action was justified in Iraq it's certainly justified for Israel. Time to cut off the funding and use it for the taxpayers.

Try to be objective.

Nothing but objective. WMDs have been found in Iraq. Outdated, often unuseable remnants of the first gulf war but WMDs none the less. Of course the UN weapons inspectors knew about them and dismissed them as no longer viable, but the administration can still point to them and say "See..."

Israel did in fact sign some of these documents you mention. They did so in good faith, understanding that they'd be protected from groups like Hezbollah. Do you believe they have been so protected? It certainly doesn't seem so to me. If not, then they are clearly justified in ignoring said documents.

Finally, most here can tell you that I have never thought the Iraq action was justified. Now that we have an investment of human lives, the choices change and none of them are particularly palatable. I personally think we should write it off as a bad idea and get the hell out. This would, unfortunately, leave Iraq in complete disarray and render those lives lost meaningless, so I understand the arguments against such a conclusion. I still think that it's what will eventually happen.

Edit: I should proof read this shit before I post it.

 

[chcr]

BTW, has everyone seen the video tape of the rocket fire coming from behind and around the building where all the "innocent children" were allegedly killed?

 

[Gonz]

Not yet...but I've seen thousands of its cousins.

 

[spike]

Nothing but objective. WMDs have been found in Iraq. Outdated, often unuseable remnants of the first gulf war but WMDs none the less. Of course the UN weapons inspectors knew about them and dismissed them as no longer viable, but the administration can still point to them and say "See..."

Sure, and we can point to all the laws Israel is violating and say "See" also.

Israel did in fact sign some of these documents you mention. They did so in good faith, understanding that they'd be protected from groups like Hezbollah. Do you believe they have been so protected? It certainly doesn't seem so to me. If not, then they are clearly justified in ignoring said documents.

Neither side has been protected real well by the UN. That does not give license to conduct war crimes or ignore the laws they have agreed to. Protecting themselves is a different matter from criminal activity.

Finally, most here can tell you that I have never thought the Iraq action was justified. Now that we have an investment of human lives, the choices change and none of them are particularly palatable. I personally think we should write it off as a bad idea and get the hell out. This would, unfortunately, leave Iraq in complete disarray and render those lives lost meaningless,

It would prevent a lot more meaningless loss of life though. Sooner the better.

so I understand the arguments against such a conclusion. I still think that it's what will eventually happen.

Edit: I should proof read this shit before I post it.

The point is though that the US should not be wasting massive amounts of taxpayer money supporting a country that breaks proven to be more criminal than just about any other including Iraq. That's my main beef.

I'd rather not waste another Trillion dollars in Iraq either.

That money should be used to benefit the taxpayers.

 

[chcr]

The point is though that the US should not be wasting massive amounts of taxpayer money supporting a country that breaks proven to be more criminal than just about any other including Iraq. That's my main beef.

I'd rather not waste another Trillion dollars in Iraq either.

That money should be used to benefit the taxpayers.

We agree on that point, anyway.

What we don't agree on is the difference between a self-proclaimed political entity who attack non-combatants as a matter of policy and a sovereign nation that defends it's borders and it's citizens, sometimes overzealously. I know which one I'd rather align myself with. You call the Israelis criminal but what about the criminals of Hezbollah? Sorry, terrorism is not justifiable under any circumstances. I will always applaud reacting violently to terrorism. If someone houses, clothes, feeds or protects a terrorist, they are a terrorist. Even if they never pull a trigger or set off a bomb. As for the innocents that have been killed, it's deplorable but terrorists routinely use these people as shields so, in my view at least in a case like that, the terrorists are responsible for these deaths.

Finally, I would suggest to you that without the moderating influence of the US on Israel the bloodbath would be horrifying.

Edit: Note that insurgency is separate from terrorism.

 

[spike]

We agree on that point, anyway.

The way taxpayer money is spent is certainly a good thing to agree about.

I have other views on the rest of that but I want to emphasize that the way our money is spent is a biggie.

 

[Gonz]

That money should be used to benefit the taxpayers.

Ok, since you can't see the forest because of the trees, I'll attempt to make things clearer.

Since 9/11:

We've taken out a terrorist group calling themsleves a political group in Afghanistan. (read:Taliban). They, nor the country they claim to represent, attacked the US. They did bolster a group who claimed to attack the US. We're still there.

We've taken out a viscious leader who surrendered to the US led coalition in 1991. He routinely fired millsiles at the UN backed US & British airpower that was patroling the no-fly zone. He routienly evaded, stalled, harangued & went to all means to make the jobs of UN weapons inspectors more difficult, or impossible, including having said inspectors removed from his country. Meanwhile, the UN was allowing France & Russia (Germany perhaps) to subsidize Mr Husseins personal cash stash by selling him products that were illegal to sell him under the terms of surrender. After 12 years of this crap, we got a President who could see the bigger picture & decided that enough was enough. We're still there.

Meanwhile, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, under the guise of nuclear power. Why would a nation, sitting on top of perhaps 30% of the worlds oil reserves, need nuclear energy? Iran, thanks to GW Bush & the coalition of the willing, is now, for all intents & purposes, surrounded, by NATO countries. Coincidence? I think not.

Using the World Superpower model of not getting into direct fisticuffs unless necessary, the US gives & sells weapons & technolgy to a friendly, successful, democratic nation, that is surrounded by Arab nations with a beef against Jews. Said nation has, several times, beaten back attacks by those unfriendly, violent nations. Each time, Israel has taken land, as a victor is entitled to upon ages old war rules, only to give the land back as a buffer zone. The Arabs living in Israel get along fine, as long as they act like civilized humans instead of hateful anti-Semites.

Today, the US & Iran are engaged in a classic coldwar power struggle. By arming Hezbollah & telling them to attack Israel, they are seeing military strategy & weaponry borne by a western style democracy. The US, stalling the world from just another cease-fire (read:reamring) have decided to test the waters of the Iranian weaponry & strategy by not reeling in its ally.

Classic case of war games without starting WW3.

historical footnote:After being attacked by Japan, the US declared war on...


are you ready...



Germany & Italy.

Upon countless American deaths in a battle that had (seemingly) nothing to do us, we then focused on Japan, which countless more American GIs were killed. After killing becoup civilians & destroying cities on several continents & eventually nuking two cities, both wars ended with unconditional surrender by our enemy & Victory was at hand.

WE'RE STILL THERE.

 

[spike]

It's you who can't see the forest.

since 9/11 we quit looking for the man responsible and the taliban still exists.

we squandered a trillion dollars, countless thousands of lives, and our military resources and made a situation in Iraq worse than it was to start with.

people are getting all worked up over what is possibly just a nuclear energy program in Iran that Reagan started.

the US continues to give massive funding to one of the most criminal and violent nations in existence.

There are much better uses for the taxpayer money than this BS.

 

[Gonz]

people are getting all worked up over what is possibly just a nuclear energy program in Iran that Reagan started.

The same people will be screaming bloody murder when that "energy program" eliminates Israel or a Eurotown, wondering why we didn't read the signs & do something about it.

Care to expand on the Reagan part?

 

[spike]

It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure I remember Reagan helping with funding. I'll look more later. Right now I'm just finding a bunch of info about Gerald Ford helping start it.

March 5, 2006 – In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.



When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]



In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.



The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3]
http://www.teamliberty.net/id229.html


Some other info about Iran's nuclear program:

Article IV of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force on March 5, 1970, states:

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Thus, not only does Iran have an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for electricity, the NPT obligates the nuclear powers to "further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Iran has gone beyond its obligations under the NPT to assure others of it's peaceful intentions.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0116-Iran.html


I might have been thinking of Reagan and the Iraqi chemical weapons

not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

 

[Winky]

Today, the US & Iran are engaged in a classic cold war power struggle.

Your is epic! So correct! Even a truck driving Union werker has a better grasp on the reality
facing us than the left sides of the aisles.

But the premise that this shenanigans rises
to the level of a world war is patently absurd.

Although we lack the will to quash Iran and Syria
we certainly don't lack the means.

Question is, will we allow the apparently insane
nutcases in Iran 'get the bomb'?

Reality dictates they could only do one thing with it
and that would be attack Israel?

Could they actually supply one of their many terrorist
organizations and get smuggled in to the U.S. and detonate it?

If so will President Hillary Clinton blame America and surrender?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

 

[Gonz]

In 1976,,in August 1974, In November 1975, In August 1974,

Pre-overthrow. Irrelevent.

I might have been thinking of Reagan and the Iraqi chemical weapons

When they were somewhat an ally & they were fighting Iran, post-overthrow. Again, irrelevent.

 

[spike]

Pre-overthrow. Irrelevent.

When they were somewhat an ally & they were fighting Iran, post-overthrow. Again, irrelevent.

Pre-overthrow or not it's still very relevant that the US helped put this stuff in place.

The fact that Iran's nuclear power program is legal by the NPT is fairly important too.

 

[Professur]

Pre-overthrow or not it's still very relevant that the US helped put this stuff in place.

The fact that Iran's nuclear power program is legal by the NPT is fairly important too.

The real question being ... is it? Or are they only showing the tip of the iceberg ot the NPT. Like it or not, dispute it or not, there was a helluva lot of stuff in Iraq that the weapons inspectors insisted wasn't there. And a country is a helluva big place to hide stuff.

 

[spike]

The real question being ... is it? Or are they only showing the tip of the iceberg ot the NPT. Like it or not, dispute it or not, there was a helluva lot of stuff in Iraq that the weapons inspectors insisted wasn't there. And a country is a helluva big place to hide stuff.

We shouldn't be jumping into war everytime some doubt is seeded into our heads that maybe someone might be possibly doing something.

 

[Professur]

We shouldn't be jumping into war everytime some doubt is seeded into our heads that maybe someone might be possibly doing something.

You'd rather wait until there's no doubt?

Your very own police daily exercise "reasonable suspicion" as justification for entry without a warrant into houses, cars, and personal effects. And it's upheld in the courts daily.

 

[spike]

You'd rather wait until there's no doubt?

Your very own police daily exercise "reasonable suspicion" as justification for entry without a warrant into houses, cars, and personal effects. And it's upheld in the courts daily.

War should be a last resort and yes there should be evidence to justify it. Hell no I don't advocate spending a trillion here and there without evidence.

Iran seems to be complying with the NPT. The US is not complying with the NPT. Israel will not sign the NPT. Do you see the hypocrisy?

Also, there's 35-40 other countries with nuclear power that are capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
http://66.102.7.104/u/IaeaORG?q=cache:6GyLfVtJSlYJ:www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/peace-prize-for-iaea-a-mistake.pdf+35-40+countries.+capable+of+nuclear+weapons&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8

 

[Professur]

Also, there's 35-40 other countries with nuclear power that are capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

Including Canada. Y'know, those guys just up from you? The difference is how big a threat they are to actually using one. Countries that are run by people who don't view suicide as a bad thing (and if it involves taking out an enemy, it's a good thing, and encouraged) have a lot higher chance of using 'any' weapon. You may or may not know this, but you don't even need to acheive fission to use uranium in a bomb. That .... is .... a ..... threat ..... today.

and even if they are jsut going to use the U for power .... how many tonnes of radioactive waste are generated anually by a reactor? Who's checking to make sure that every scrap of that is disposed of? How are they planning of disposing of it? Of the 24 miles of piping carrying radioactive coolant that need to be serviced and replaced regularly ... who's going to make sure that none of that becomes radio pipe bombs? Remember that Iran and Iraq were/are at war? Who's gonna make sure that a few tanker trucks of radio coolant don't make their way into someone's drinking water?

How many of those 35-40 countries embody that kind of risk?

 

[spike]

I don't know, how many?